Why Can't Movies Be Like Books?

[Sauron the White]

Did Faramir physically have the ring on his person at any time? I was under the impression he did NOT. In The chapter - The Window On The West - I do not remember him coming in contact with it or possessing it. The Ring never had the chance to exert its influence or power over Faramir. Or am I incorrect in those facts?


Why in the world would I want a second hand source to interpret something for me when I can go to the primary source to see how things worked? As far as I know. Mr. Shippey, for all his intelligence and insight, is still a person who has only read Tolkiens works. Is that correct? He did not help write them or formulate them, only giving his opinion about the situation.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Did Faramir physically have the ring on his person at any time? I was under the impression he did NOT. In The chapter - The Window On The West - I do not remember him coming in contact with it or possessing it. The Ring never had the chance to exert its influence or power over Faramir. Or am I incorrect in those facts?

Sam had it on him & wasn't possessed, or corrupted, by it.

Why in the world would I want a second hand source to interpret something for me when I can go to the primary source to see how things worked? .

Well, I just pointed out that my last post about the nature of the Ring did not come from Shippey, but from the text itself. Shippey is generally accepted by those in the know to be one of the greatest & most insightful experts on Tolkien's work. Before dismissing him I'd suggest you read his books.

[Annatar]

Originally Posted by davem

Sam had it on him & wasn't possessed, or corrupted, by it.

The movies are not the books.
The books are not the movies.


PJ can increase the corruptive power of the ring, and it doesn't affect the books, because the movies are not the books.

If you don't like the movies, you can always read the books instead.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Annatar

The movies are not the books.
The books are not the movies.

This is the kind of challenging intellectual debate that I keep coming back for.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

This is the kind of challenging intellectual debate that I keep coming back for.

Myself, on the other hand, have been coming back fully expecting to see one of the brighter Downs wits who so favour parody to provide us with Professor Higgins' rendition of Why can't the movie be more like the book?.

I'd try my hand at it myself except blast it all PJ provided so much evidence himself to satisfy the refrain.

Originally Posted by WCH

PJ should have read Shippey.

What's even more frightening than the possibility that he didn't is that he did, but didn't understand him. Or Fleiger's Splintered Light.

Originally Posted by StW

Why in the world would I want a second hand source to interpret something for me . . . .

I could swear that this sentence is the start of that Professor Higgin's parody I was thinking of. Beginning rings so true to it . . .

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Why in the world would I want a second hand source to interpret something for me when I can go to the primary source to see how things worked? As far as I know. Mr. Shippey, for all his intelligence and insight, is still a person who has only read Tolkiens works. Is that correct? He did not help write them or formulate them, only giving his opinion about the situation.

To which rather arrogant assertion I can only reply with part of the Oath of the Jefferson Society: "...holding it to be true that opinions arising from solitary Observation and Reflexion are seldom in the first Instance, correct."

It happens that Shippey, one of the last old-school philologists, and who in fact held Tolkien's old Chair at Leeds, might know a few things relevant to textual exegesis (especially linguistic) that you (or I) may not. Christopher Tolkien has read Shippey and considered his observations- perhaps you think your understanding is superior to CT's?

I find it rather interesting that you hold the work of Tolkien scholars to be useless, on the principle that they are just people with opinions, in no way superior to, or even capable of informing, your own; but you expect us to accept as Authorities the "professional fim critics" who loved the movies.

*****

On to Faramir- at least to PJ, simply being in the same room with the Ring is enough to trip Faramir over the edge; and indeed Filmamir does "touch" it with his sword. In the book of course he never sees it.

But touching it is not a factor. Boromir never did; nor did Saruman, nor Denethor. Sam by contrast actually wore it, yet was able to hand it over. It's all about the desire.

But PJ explicitly never understood any of this: by *his own admission* the entire Osgiliation arose from this false idea that any person (or at least Man) who came near the thing would be powerless not to try and grab it. This notion is already present in the Prologue, which claims, incorrectly, that Men "above all desire Power." A little knowledge is dangerous. PJ just didn't get it, but thought he did: he reminds me of the sort of rube who thinks he can fix his own car, and winds up leaving crucial parts on the driveway, and forcing others to 'fit' with a hammer.

PJ should have read Shippey.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Annatar:

But the movies are not as good as they could have been had they not tossed out a lot of what makes the books good. Your 'adaptation = carte blanche to rewrite' bromide is nonsense. You're trying to avoid comparison of the movies to the books (to the disadvantage of the former) by pretending they can't validly be compared. Tosh. The story is the same story, the characters the same characters. A different medium of storytelling, while requiring adaptation, cutting and compression, is nonetheless obligated not to distort what it does preserve of the original.

Your slogan also conveniently ducks the fact which is glaringly obvious from PJ's interviews: he didn't comprehend his source material, the sine qua non of a quality adaptation. "Tolkien's book was long and boring- I think I did better."

[William Cloud Hicklin]

What's even more frightening than the possibility that he didn't is that he did, but didn't understand him. Or Fleiger's Splintered Light.

What's yet more frighteneing still is that Phillippa Boyens had indeed read Tolkien's Letters, yet proceeded to commit so many blunders: some, in fact, being the same ones T castigated Zimmerman for in the famous No. 210.

[Sauron the White]

Is it fair to say that the Ring corrupts? Is that not the basis for the rejection of it by Gandalf and Galadriel?

Who knew more about the powers of the Ring than either or those two in the book?

davem ... I ask you about Faramir and you respond telling me that Sam was not corrupted and he possessed the ring. thank you. How long of a period of time would you estimate that Sam had the Ring in his possession?

WCH - I am not dismissing anyones opinion out of hand. What I am saying is that the primary source- the actual text of LOTR is the first place to start and get the most authoritative information. Is that wrong? Which authors or Tolkien scholars should I defer to over what the text itself says?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

What the text itself says is that Faramir did not attempt to take the Ring. "Not if this thing were lying by theside of the road."

You got a problem wid dat?

[Sauron the White]

Bethberry... here are the lyrics to the Prof. Higgins tune from MY FAIR LADY.

"Why Can't a Woman Be More Like a Man?"
music by Frederick Loewe; lyrics by Alan Jay Lerner
PROFESSOR HIGGINS:
Why can't a woman be more like a man?
Men are so honest, so thoroughly square;
Eternally noble, historically fair.
Who, when you win, will always give your back a pat.
Why can't a woman be like that?
Why does every one do what the others do?
Can't a woman learn to use her head?
Why do they do everything their mothers do?
Why don't they grow up, well, like their father instead?

Why can't a woman take after a man?
Men are so pleasant, so easy to please.
Whenever you're with them, you're always at ease.

Would you be slighted if I didn't speak for hours?

COLONEL PICKERING:
Of course not.

PROFESSOR HIGGINS:
Would you be livid if I had a drink or two?

COLONEL PICKERING:
Nonsense.

PROFESSOR HIGGINS:
Would you be wounded if I never sent you flowers?

COLONEL PICKERING:
Never.

PROFESSOR HIGGINS:
Well, why can't a woman be like you?

One man in a million may shout a bit.
Now and then, there's one with slight defects.
One perhaps whose truthfulness you doubt a bit,
But by and large we are a marvelous sex!

Why can't a woman take after a man?
'Cause men are so friendly, good-natured and kind.
A better companion you never will find.

If I were hours late for dinner would you bellow?

COLONEL PICKERING:
Of course not.

PROFESSOR HIGGINS:
If I forgot your silly birthday, would you fuss?

COLONEL PICKERING:
Nonsense.

PROFESSOR HIGGINS:
Would you complain if I took out another fellow?

Pickering
Never.

PROFESSOR HIGGINS:
Why can't a woman be like us?

[dialog]

PROFESSOR HIGGINS:
Why can't a woman be more like a man?
Men are so decent, such regular chaps;
Ready to help you through any mishaps;
Ready to buck you up whenever you're glum.
Why can't a woman be a chum?

Why is thinking something women never do?
And why is logic never even tried?
Straightening up their hair is all they ever do.
Why don't they straighten up the mess that's inside?

Why can't a woman behave like a man?
If I was a woman who'd been to a ball,
Been hailed as a princess by one and by all;
Would I start weeping like a bathtub overflowing,
Or carry on as if my home were in a tree?
Would I run off and never tell me where I'm going?
Why can't a woman be like me?
==================================

While I certainly am no expert on this topic, when I saw the film and heard the song I thought the point was to show how foolish it was of Higgins to expect such a thing. Higgins was silly to expect a woman to be more like a man because they are two very different things.

If that is true, doesn't this song work against the element here who wants the films to be more like the books? They also refuse to recognize that the two are very different things.

I would love to hear your thoughts on this. I am sure it is possible that the same source material can elicit two opposite responses but I do not understand how such a song could be fodder for the purist point of view. Just the opposite actually.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Is it fair to say that the Ring corrupts? Is that not the basis for the rejection of it by Gandalf and Galadriel?

The Ring corrupts if you take it & claim it as your own. It doesn't corrupt otherwise. Every individual has the absolute freedom to reject the Ring.

davem ... I ask you about Faramir and you respond telling me that Sam was not corrupted and he possessed the ring. thank you. How long of a period of time would you estimate that Sam had the Ring in his possession?

Longer than Faramir. In fact, longer than anyone but Sauron, Isildur, Smeagol, Bilbo & Frodo. If the Ring is instantly corrupting, whether the bearer accepts it or not, Sam should have been corrupted by it.

Is that wrong? Which authors or Tolkien scholars should I defer to over what the text itself says?

Well, as I've already stated twice, I've used the text to confirm my argument, rather than Shippey.